Humping chairs, the floor, gyrating hips across a stage and claiming one wrote stolen songs certainly qualifies her to discuss immigration issues. Yet she obviously brings in ratings with her looks so FOX and all the rest give her a platform.

Meantime her record sales go up, she pretends she is such a good heart and the rest of us are suckers and stuck being lectured to by the likes of her.

Well for the record, my opinion is shut the hell up and if you don't like our laws you are free to return to beloved Columbia.

The open borders crowd is putting pressure on Major League Baseball and the Players Association, to join the boycott of Arizona by moving the 2011 All Stars Game away from Phoenix. Please help stem this rising tide of race baiting and let the MLB and the players know that the American people are for the rule of law and that any action by them that supports illegal immigration or acts of violence and crimes against American citizens or interferes with the right of Arizona's citizens to protect their family's, will result in a boycott against Major League Baseball nation wide.

Call MLB at (212) 931-7800 and the Players Association at (212) 826-0808. Be polite but let them know that this law isn't about race or violating anyones rights, this is about being able to continue our way of life in this country in peace and safety. This movement against the citizens of Arizona is anti American and Major League Baseball and their players should be ashamed of themselves for even considering a boycott of this or any other state.

Baseball is suppose to be Americas' game, I guess not anymore but remember that the person you're talking to is just someone paid to answer the phone, so again be nice. P.C.

Crafty, The link you posted shows what enforcing the law could accomplish.

If done on a national level our problems would be partially solved. The other half of the equation is not allowing people in the US to knowingly hire illegals - not just those coming accorss the borders, but those in all states whether it be in NYC or Indianapolis, Indiana. Whether they be Israeli, Irish, Chinese, etc. WE have to put as stop to the argument that this is about Mexicans.

We must ammend the law that people born here are automatic citizens even if both parents are illegal (or if not one of them is a citizen). If one or both are here legally but not citizens I don't know what we should do but if both are illegal why can't we use common sense? Think of the benefit. You could put yourself up for hire to Shakira types and offer your hand in marriage and have their baby for a fee. If they want their baby to be a US citizen they would have to do it with you, not the Chicanos.

Personally I don't want Shakira types speaking for me or my country. We are dumbed down enough.

By ROSS DOUTHATPublished: May 2, 2010 Critics of Arizona’s new immigration law have not been shy about impugning the motives of its supporters. The measure, which requires police to check the immigration status of people they question or detain, has been denounced as a “Nazi” or “near-fascist” law, a “police state” intervention, an imitation of “apartheid,” a “Juan Crow” regime that only a bigot could possibly support.

Faced with this kind of hyperbole, the supposed bigots have understandably returned the favor, dismissing opponents of the Arizona measure as limousine liberals who don’t understand the grim realities of life along an often-lawless border. And so the debate has become a storm of insults rather than an argument.

On the specifics of the law, Arizona’s critics have legitimate concerns. Their hysteria has been egregious: you would never guess, amid all the heavy breathing about desert fascism, that federal law already requires legal immigrants to carry proof of their status at all times. But the measure is problematic nonetheless. The majority of police officers, already overburdened, will probably enforce it only intermittently. For an overzealous minority, it opens obvious opportunities for harassment and abuse.

Just because this is the wrong way to enforce America’s immigration laws, however, doesn’t mean they don’t need to be enforced. Illegal immigrants are far more sympathetic than your average lawbreaker: they’re risk-takers looking for a better life in the United States, something they have in common with nearly every living American’s ancestors. But by denouncing almost any crackdown on them as inherently bigoted and cruel, the “pro-immigrant” side of the debate is ultimately perpetuating a deeply unjust system.

There’s a good argument, on moral and self-interested grounds alike, that the United States should be as welcoming as possible to immigrants. But there’s no compelling reason that we should decide which immigrants to welcome based on their proximity to our border, and their ability to slip across.

It takes nothing away from Mexico or Mexicans to note that millions upon millions of people worldwide would give anything for the chance to migrate to America. Many come from nations that are poorer than our southern neighbor. Many have endured natural disasters, or suffered political or religious persecution. And many have spent years navigating our byzantine immigration bureaucracy, only to watch politicians in both parties dangle the promise of amnesty in front of people who jumped the border and the line.

As of the mid-2000s, roughly 700,000 migrants were entering the United States illegally every year. Fifty-seven percent came from Mexico, and 24 percent from the rest of Latin America. Only 13 percent came from Africa, the Middle East, South Asia and the Pacific Rim.

In a better world, the United States would welcome hundreds of thousands more legal immigrants annually, from a much wider array of countries. A more diverse immigrant population would have fewer opportunities to self-segregate and stronger incentives to assimilate. Fears of a Spanish-speaking reconquista would diminish, and so would the likelihood of backlash. And instead of being heavily skewed toward low-skilled migrants, our system could tilt toward higher-skilled applicants, making America more competitive and less stratified.

Such a system would also be fairer to the would-be immigrants themselves. America has always prided itself on attracting people from every culture, continent and creed. In a globalized world, aspiring Americans in Zimbabwe or Burma should compete on a level playing field with Mexicans and Salvadorans. The American dream should seem no more unattainable in China than in Chihuahua.

But this can only happen if America first regains control of its southern border. There is a widespread pretense that this has been tried and found to be impossible, when really it’s been found difficult and left untried.

Curbing the demand for illegal workers requires stiff workplace enforcement, stringent penalties for hiring undocumented workers, and shared sacrifice from Americans accustomed to benefiting from cheap labor. Reducing the supply requires bigger Border Patrol budgets and enforcement measures that will inevitably be criticized as draconian: some kind of tamper-proof Social Security card, most likely, and then more physical walls along our southern border, as opposed to the “virtual” wall that the Obama administration seems to be wisely abandoning.

You can see why our leaders would rather duck the problem. But when Washington doesn’t act, the people on the front lines end up taking matters into their own hands.

If you don’t like what Arizona just did, the answer isn’t to scream “fascist!” It’s to demand that the federal government do its job, so that we can have the immigration system that both Americans and immigrants deserve. =====PS: I just made those two call too.

"The other half of the equation is not allowing people in the US to knowingly hire illegals..."

Agree in the case of 'knowingly'. My sister who consults in Human Resources complains of legislation putting more burdens on employers. Immigration law is the responsibility of the US Govt. The employer's burden should be limited to disclosing who they hire and who they intend to hire and to provide whatever information to the Feds that they require. Then the burden goes back to the govt for enforcement.

I'm not in the business of hiring but as a landlord I wonder the same question. Should I checking and stopping illegals from renting? It hasn't been an issue for me yet. I know some towns have tried to crack down on landlords for that. Like the challenge the police will face under the Arizona law, I have to be very very careful to give people from any/all demographic groups equal and fair treatment. If I demand proof of something from someone Hispanic or from elsewhere, then I need to demand it of everyone.

LUTON, England — When Mohammed Qurban stood outside the Jamia mosque in the heavily Muslim Bury Park district on Tuesday and spoke anxiously about Britain’s record-high levels of immigration, he was reflecting a powerful undercurrent that could help tip victory in dozens of constituencies in Thursday’s general election to the main opposition groups vying with the governing Labour Party for power, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats.

Nick Griffin, British National Party leader, waited to confront the Conservatives’ David Cameron in Dagenham on Saturday. “I think this country is coming overpopulated, too many people coming in from everywhere, especially Europe,” Mr. Qurban said, as fellow worshipers nodded in assent. In particular, he said, thousands of Poles in Luton were taking jobs from the children and grandchildren of a previous generation of immigrants like himself, those who arrived from Pakistan in one of Britain’s early waves of migration in the 1960s.

The conversation with Mr. Qurban, and at least a dozen others like it with Muslims in Luton, captured a shift of potentially far-reaching significance. The most strident opponents of large-scale immigration have traditionally been white, native-born Britons, and their favorite target immigrant blacks and Asians, particularly Muslims.

The incongruity was not lost on Mr. Qurban, 56, a rental agent who seemed keen to separate himself from the skinheads and others whose anti-immigrant agitation has sometimes turned violent. “This is my town, this is my bread-and-butter,” he said. “I’m a law-abiding citizen, never crossed the line, that is definitely out of order. The Poles have a problem at home as we do in Pakistan, no jobs, no money. I want to go along with them. But definitely, it’s up to the government to put a cap on it.”

The Poles, of course, are not technically immigrants. As part of the European Union, Britain is subject to its labor laws, which guarantee free movement of workers among member nations. With the financial crisis and the evaporation of millions of jobs, these legal migrants — accounting for 40 percent of the inflow in Britain — have stirred tensions throughout the union. The other 60 percent are foreigners, most of them illegal immigrants.

Voters consistently rank the high level of immigration as one of the most pressing issues, after the recession-hit economy, the state-run health service and crime. But since the 1950s, when Caribbean immigrants gave the country its first experience of large-scale, sustained population inflows, it has been an issue that has carried the potential for electoral disaster. Then and in succeeding decades, when new arrivals began arriving in large numbers from Africa, Asia and the Middle East, any politician advocating stricter curbs risked drawing charges of racism, as well as alienating increasingly important voter blocs.

But this election has been different, with all three major parties saying something must be done to reduce migrant flows that have brought a net inflow since Labour came to power in 1997 of about two million foreigners, many of them people who found their way into Britain without prior approval. (a.k.a. illegally )

That has been enough to have government statisticians predict that the population of Britain, already one of Europe’s most overcrowded nations, could grow by nearly 10 million, to 70 million, within 20 years, according to the Office for National Statistics, a government agency.

Luton, a city 50 miles northwest of London where a fifth of the population of about 100,000 are of Asian origin, has been a microcosm, in many ways, of the challenges immigration has posed. The party winning the constituency of Luton South, where most of the city’s Muslims live, has won every general election in Britain since 1951.

For the last decade, Luton has been a byword for many of Britain’s social and economic afflictions, as well as for tensions over immigrant communities. It has long been a down-at-the-heels neighbor to the more prosperous cities and towns that surround it. A major blow came in the last decade, when General Motors closed a local car plant, with the loss of more than 30,000 jobs.

When four Islamic suicide bombers attacked London’s transit system on July 7, 2005, killing 56 people, including themselves, they set off from Luton. Last year, Muslim extremists caused an outcry when they disrupted a parade for British soldiers returning from Iraq. Soon after, a Luton mosque was firebombed.

But there has been little sign of ethnic tensions in the current campaign, in which Luton South has been singled out as one of about 100 Labour-held “marginal” seats the Conservatives need as part of their strategy for winning the election. Conservative hopes have been raised by the disgracing of the departing Labour member of Parliament, Margaret Moran, who said she was stepping down after drawing headlines in last year’s scandal over parliamentary expenses.

But the immigration issue is the one that could cut most into the Labour vote. Labour, traditionally strong with immigrants, has defended its record by saying that new rules since the last election have brought arrivals down sharply from a high of 330,000 in 2007 to 250,000 in 2008 — though much of the difference was accounted for by Europeans who chose voluntarily to go home. The Conservatives have said they will introduce a cap on the total numbers, reducing the inflow by as much as 50 percent.

Liberal Democrats also favor a reduction, but would grant an amnesty to an estimated one million illegal immigrants who can prove they have been in Britain for 10 years.

Even the far-right British National Party has changed its policy, bowing to court rulings that threatened it with a ban unless it shed its whites-only dogmas. Now it favors an end to all immigration, although it says people from “alien cultures” should be offered $75,000 each to accept “voluntary repatriation.”

“It’s not about race,” Nick Griffin, the party’s leader, said in an interview over the weekend as he led a noisy protest against David Cameron, the Conservative leader, in the London suburb of Romford. “What we’re saying is, ‘Britain is full up. The door is closed.’ ”

An influential immigration-monitoring group, Migration Watch, says it, too, sees the issue as having moved beyond race. “It’s about numbers and space, not about race,” said Sir Andrew Green, a former British ambassador to Saudi Arabia, who leads the group. “We’re a very small island, and the issue is what it will mean to the country if the population grows to 70 million in 20 years’ time.”

An image from the trailer for 'Machete,' a revenge flick that centers on an assassination plot against an anti-immigration U.S. senator.

A violent new film from cult director Robert Rodriguez is declaring war on Arizona with a "special Cinco De Mayo message" in the wake of the state's controversial illegal immigration law.

That message is: "They just f---ed with the wrong Mexican."

"Machete," which features a knife-wielding Mexican assassin out for revenge against double-crossing gringos, won't be in theaters until September, but it is already sparking a political melee over Wednesday's stab at the Grand Canyon State.

In the trailer for the film, the title character is hired to assassinate an anti-immigration U.S. senator played by Robert De Niro. Protesters are seen waving nationalist signs as the senator speaks to a charged-up rally: "We are at war," he booms. "Every time an illegal dances across our border, it is an act of aggression against this sovereign state — an overt act of terrorism."

But before the trailer even begins, the battle-scarred title character stares out from the screen as he tells viewers that what's about to unfold — an immigration-laced slasher grindhouse flick — is about the current border battle in Arizona.

Click here to see the video.

The trailer was released Wednesday, just 24 hours after an envelope filled with a still-undetermined white powder was sent to Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, temporarily closing the State Capitol in Phoenix. The powder spilled out when a staffer opened it Tuesday morning, sending Hazmat teams scrambling through the governor's offices. No one was sickened, but state police and the FBI are investigating the incident.

It was just the latest development in a debate that is growing more rancorous by the minute.

Some outspoken critics of illegal immigration took umbrage at the movie trailer and its swipe at Arizona, which is the entry point for one-third of all illegal immigrants in the U.S.

"It's pretty ugly out there," said former Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo, a staunch advocate of tougher immigration laws. "Half the time that's the way all of us are depicted: corrupt, no good, racist."

Tancredo, who served in the House from 1999-2009, said he received "tons of death threats" while in office and frequently wore a bulletproof vest during public speeches. Though the language of the film is nothing new to him, he said he still finds it offensive.

"The racists who made that trailer, they are as racist as anything I have ever seen" from either side of the immigration debate, Tancredo said.

But, he added, "these guys are 'politically correct' racists, so you cannot heap indignities upon them."

In "Machete," the protagonist, played by Danny Trejo, is a former Mexican Federale now looking for work as a day laborer in Texas. He charges $70 a day for yard work, but an oily businessman makes him an offer he can't refuse: $150,000 to take out a senator bent on deporting illegal immigrants.

"As you know, illegal Americans are being forced out of our country at an alarming rate," says the contractor. "For the good of both our people, the senator must die."

The film, which is set to be released Sept. 3, is produced by 20th Century Fox, a production company owned by Fox News' parent company, News Corp.

20th Century Fox said that Rodriguez speaks for himself on political issues. The studio was comfortable with the release of the movie trailer on Cinco De Mayo, but says it has no political stake in the immigration debate.

Representatives for Rodriguez did not return requests for comment. But the head of the production studio handling the international release of the film said "Machete" is a classic grindhouse picture typical of the man who made "Desperado" and "Sin City."

"'Machete' is a Robert Rodriguez movie through and through, wild and wonderful, exactly the kind of exciting and irreverent genre movie that his fans dream about," Ashok Amritraj, CEO of Hyde Park Entertainment, said in an interview with Variety Magazine.

De Niro, playing the senator, fits many familiar tropes about the Southwest: he's a gun-toting, Stetson hat-wearing, flag pin-blazing cowboy from Texas.

He and Trejo are joined by a number of stars: Cheech Marin plays a shotgun-shooting warrior priest, Lindsay Lohan plays the senator's Patty Hearst-like daughter and Don Johnson, as a sheriff, growls that "there's nothing I'd like more than to see more than that Mexican dance the bolero at the end of a rope."

Jessica Alba, a border patrol agent, rallies a group of laborers while crying, "We didn't cross the border — the border crossed us!"

Tancredo, who argued that the film should not be distributed at all, said he wasn't worried the movie would incite any violence, but that its political message was clear.

"I think it is a true reflection of exactly who these people are and what they think about America," he said.

"[W]hile millionaire athletes become walking billboards for a political cause, the state of Arizona might want to review the terms of its relationship with the Suns. If Mr. Sarver wants to use his team to push a political agenda, perhaps citizens can push back. Imagine Phoenix residents channeling the spirits of Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. by turning up en masse to Suns games, sneaking in without tickets, demanding special services like free food and access to box seats, overtaxing arena security and ruining the game for the people with tickets. They can call it a celebration of diversity."We might add that if you give birth at a game, you get lifetime season tickets for the anchor baby. Or maybe the Suns should stick to basketball. Just a thought.

The protest that will get the owners attention is if he suddenly gets letters from long time supporters saying- "due to your political activism I can no longer support the team. Your politics is going to kill my income, so I am taking preemptive action by shutting you down first". It would be best to have it happen quietly but enmasse..........I wonder when people will start.

OK. Lets stop illegal immigration at all our borders including NYC, Canada and everywhere else.Then we stop hiring illegals.Then we stop allowing illegals to utilize public services except for emergencies.WE change the thing where you are born here from illegal parents you are an automatic citizen.

Woof, And now, in the name of social justice, Eric Holder is looking into stopping the Arizona law at the federal level. He won't act to protect the citizens of Arizona by enforcing the laws we already have but he will act to protect criminals that are here illegally. This is our top Federal law enforcement official?

You can voice your opinion on the subject by calling the Attorney General's comment line at: 202-353-1555 or email the Department of Justice at: AskDOJ@usdoj.gov

I told them that I knew I couldn't appeal to their sense of right and wrong and that I knew that political corruption throughout our government system had rendered them guardians of the status quo but I also told them that at least I could show them where all that blood on their hands came from, and sent them the web address's of the victims site in my earlier post. I'm sure I'll be on some kind of watchlist now but I was probably already on one. P.C.

Woof, As the city of LA, mis characterizes Arizona's new law and mettles in the affairs of citizens from another state, it does nothing to protect its own citizens from the burdens of illegal immigration.

Woof GM, You may have hit on something there, LA may be worried that if the new law is effective and other states implement it as well, that all the illegals will end up there instead of going back to their home countries. Let's see how long they can keep the welcome mat out if that happens. P.C.

Attorney General Eric Holder testifies before the House Judiciary Committee May 13 on Capitol Hill. (AP Photo)

Despite repeatedly voicing concerns about Arizona's new immigration enforcement law in recent weeks and threatening to challenge it, Attorney General Eric Holder said Thursday he has not yet read the law -- which is only 10 pages long.

"I have not had a chance to -- I've glanced at it," Holder said at a House Judiciary Committee hearing when asked had he read the state law cracking down on illegal immigrants.

Holder told reporters last month that he fears the new law is subject to abuse and that the Justice Department and the Homeland Security Department are in the midst of conducting a review.

The Arizona law requires local and state law enforcement to question people about their immigration status if there's reason to suspect they're in the country illegally, and makes it a state crime to be in the United States illegally.

The law has sparked protests across the country, including a City Council-approved boycott of Arizona businesses by Los Angeles.But proponents deny that the law encourages racial profilng, with some saying the local controversy is a symptom of a broken federal immigration system.

Holder said last month that a number of options are under consideration, including the possibility of a court challenge. On Thursday, Holder said he plans to read the law before reaching a decision on whether he thinks it's constitutional. When asked by Rep.Ted Poe, R-Texas, how he could have constitutional concerns about a law he has not read, Holder said: "Well, what I've said is that I've not made up my mind. I've only made the comments that I've made on the basis of things that I've been able to glean by reading newspaper accounts, obviously, television, talking to people who are on the review panel...looking at the law."

On Sunday, Holder said he does not think Arizona's law is racially motivated but voiced concern that its enforcement could lead to racial profiling. Holder said he understands the frustration behind the Arizona law, but he warned during an appearance on ABC's "This Week" that "we could potentially get on a slippery slope where people will be picked on because of how they look as opposed to what they have done."

I still say Republicans can blunt the racial thing by clearly pointing out that we will not tolerate illegal immigration from any country not just the Mexicans and the southern border.

When Hannity had it pointed out to him from Juan Williams (whom I like) that there are 50,000 illegal Irish in NYC he ignored the comment. Well what does anyone expect then when he is silent over this yet screaming talking points that are clearly geared towards Latinos?

My question is why is there and why do we tolerate 50K illegal Irish in NYC? Why is this not as outrageous as the Latinos coming here illegally? What is the difference? Illegal is illegal. Juan Williams has a point.

"why do we tolerate 50K illegal Irish in NYC? Why is this not as outrageous as the Latinos coming here illegally? What is the difference?"

Your point on principle is valid, but the issue of the moment is the Arizona law and that would most certainly apply to illegals from Ireland. Most supporters nationwide of the Arizona law would like to see it duplicated elsewhere.

I think we already agreed Hannity is not the brightest light nor a leader in the movement nor running for anything. I assume he was blindsided by that statistic, if true.

My primary justification for border control and document checking comes from learning about the 19 hijackers who lived among us for the wrong reasons so I should not sneeze at 50,000 as a small number. But 50k is not 20 million, when you ask what is the difference. Another difference is that we don't share a border with Ireland so checking the entry is a possible. Like with the hijackers, I imagine they overstay their visas, live and hide among us while law enforcement turns a blind eye even when discovered in a traffic stop for example. NYC (and the rest)should end its own safe haven for illegals status if it wants people to have respect for the law.

Doug, Agreed by far Latinos make up the largest proportion of illegals.But my point is not just on principal.IMO opinion it is quite the contrary. It is political.IF we keep making this about Mexcans and other Southern Americans coming here and not about ALL illegals those opposed to doing anything about it, primarily Latinos and their liberal buddies will continue to keep making this about "race". It isn't as you know but they can continue to rile up the Hispanics who have the nerve to walk accorss th border illegally and than lecture us about rights, humane treament, dignity and all the rest of the crap while they take advantage of the political correct crowd whose ONLY concern is more Demcocrat voters. Could you imagine the Bama crowd if these people voted for Republicans??

CCP, You are 100% right on the national issue being all about politics. Obama wants and needs the new people legalized based on projected voting and he wants the R's portrayed as opposing it based on ethnicity. It seems to me though that the property owners of AZ are at wits end because of trespassing, kidnapping etc. not ethnicity. I agree that the marketing of that message must be done very carefully and precisely.

Woof, There are plenty of people from all kinds of different races that want to come here, why should Hispanics be allowed such out of proportionate numbers? Where is the social justice there? Of course comparing 50,000 Irish in NY to the 450,000 Mexican illegals in Arizona and the tens of millions more across the states is way out of whack. A Mexican, is a Mexican, and there is nothing racial in identifying them as Mexican! And noting that millions of Mexicans are breaking our immigration laws then us setting out to stop them from illegally entering the states and doing our best to deport them back to Mexico, is not racist either. And it wouldn't be such a problem if our politicians stopped acting in their own best interest and did what was in the best interest of the People and enforced our laws. Jeez! This isn't about rights or discrimination, this is about our corrupt government and our laws being ignored by our neighbours. Bad neighbors! And what makes good neighbors? Good fences. And what makes good government? Small government. And we need to stop letting the Left frame the argument and redefine the meanings of words in their politically correct way, it's an argument we can't win regardless of fact and they know the facts aren't on their side so that's why they keep changing the argument into one about race and civil rights; we need to keep on topic, which is illegal immigration, security, sovereignty and the rule of law. Even when they discuss the issue they frame it as immigration, not illegal immigration; when they discuss the individuals coming here illegally they call them immigrants as if no law has been broken. Of course all of this is being driven by the press, who frame it perfectly for the Left. We have got to bring it back to the facts and call a Mexican and Mexican and a Mexican here illegally an illegal alien from Mexico, in violation of Federal law. I mean these aren't five or six Swedish swimsuit models coming across the Canadian border; these are thousands of Mexican nationals flooding illegally into our nation everyday, with millions staying here on a permanent level. We don't know who they are, what they've done, what they are doing here or how many of them there are. We do know they flood our nation with illegal drugs, are over crowding our schools, draining our benefit funds, overwhelming our hospitals and law enforcement agencies and jails, with a total cost of about 68 billion dollars a year and countless American citizens victimized by crimes committed by them. And yes many just want work; well great, go back and come in by the F'in rules! P.C.

ATLANTA — Jessica Colotl, a 21-year-old college student and illegal Mexican immigrant at the center of a contentious immigration case, surrendered to a Georgia sheriff on Friday but continued to deny wrongdoing.

Ms. Colotl was arrested in March for driving without a license and could face deportation next year. On Wednesday the sheriff filed a felony charge against her for providing a false address to the police. The case has become a flash point in the national debate over whether federal immigration laws should be enforced by local and state officials. And like Arizona’s tough new immigration law, it has highlighted a rift between the federal government and local politicians over how illegal immigrants should be detected and prosecuted.

“I never thought that I’d be caught up in this messed-up system,” Ms. Colotl said Friday at a news conference after being released on $2,500 bail. “I was treated like a criminal, like a threat to the nation.”

Civil rights groups say Ms. Colotl should be spared deportation because she was brought to the United States without legal documents by her parents at age 11. They also note that she has excelled academically and was discovered to be here illegally only after a routine traffic violation. Supporters of immigration laws and the sheriff’s office in Cobb County say she violated state law, misled the police about her address and should not receive special treatment for her age or education.

Ms. Colotl was pulled over March 29 by a campus officer at Kennesaw State University in suburban Atlanta, where she is two semesters from graduation, for “impeding the flow of traffic.” After she presented the officer an expired Mexican passport instead of a valid driver’s license, she was arrested and taken to a county jail, where she acknowledged being an illegal immigrant. On May 5, she was transferred to the Etowah Detention Center in Alabama to await deportation to Mexico.

But after protests by Latino groups, demonstrations at the Georgia Capitol by her sorority sisters and a letter of support from the university’s president, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency granted a one-year deferral on her deportation so she could finish college. The “deferred action” means she could still be deported, but will be allowed to apply for an extension next year. Her ultimate goal, Ms. Colotl said at the news conference, is that proposed legislation called the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act — known as the Dream Act — will become law, providing students without legal immigration status a path to become legal.

She and her lawyer declined to discuss the immigration status of her parents.

In Georgia, the case has become intensely political. Ms. Colotl received in-state tuition, substantially reducing her cost of attending Kennesaw State. The university will charge her out-of-state rates in the future, but Republican politicians are calling for new legislation to make attendance more expensive, or impossible, for illegal immigrants.

One Republican candidate for governor, Eric Johnson, has said that if elected he will mandate that all college applicants demonstrate their citizenship. The chancellor of the state university system says that would be prohibitively expensive, costing $1.5 million, for roughly 300,000 students.

Under a program by the Department of Homeland Security, known as 287(g), local sheriffs are permitted to handle federal immigration law enforcement. The Cobb County sheriff’s office was the first in Georgia and one of the first in the United States to apply for the program. Immigration is a hot topic in the largely conservative county, where Hispanics make up 11 percent of the population, census figures show.

Mary Bauer, the legal director for the Southern Poverty Law Center, which is assisting in Ms. Colotl’s defense, said Cobb County had a history of using federal laws designed to detect dangerous criminals for arresting illegal immigrants for minor offenses. A review by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution found that from 2007 to 2009, the main crime for which immigration detainees were arrested in the county was traffic offenses.

“This is a civil rights disaster,” said Ms. Bauer, who called the county’s application of the law “mean-spirited and very probably illegal. We call on the Obama administration to end 287(g),” she said.

The sheriff, Neil Warren, said Ms. Colotl provided a false address to the police, a felony charge. Her lawyers say that she provided the address of the residence where she used to live and to where her car insurance is registered, and that she also provided her current address.

No exception should be made, however admirable the offender, said Phil Kent, a spokesman for Americans for Immigration Control, a national group opposed to illegal immigration.

“Ironically, she says she wants to go on to law school, but she’s undermining the law,” Mr. Kent said. “What’s the point of educating an illegal immigrant in a system where she can’t hold a job legally or get a driver’s license?”

“I never thought that I’d be caught up in this messed-up system,” Ms. Colotl said Friday at a news conference after being released on $2,500 bail. “I was treated like a criminal, like a threat to the nation.”

“This is a civil rights disaster,” said Ms. Bauer, who called the county’s application of the law “mean-spirited and very probably illegal. We call on the Obama administration to end 287(g),” she said.

What can I say? Simply mind boggling is it not?

If only these people were not mostly Democrats - I guarantee this problem would not exist.

Isn't part of the concept of machismo about repect? Yet we get disrespected daily in our own country.

It is NOT immigration law as I read it. Immigration status is 100% established by the federal government. It merely creates new state penalties and enforcement procedures for what is already unlawful under federal law.

An apology to the Chinese for Arizona?? The departments of immigration and homeland security should be apologizing to Arizona.

This situation has the potential for exploding into something much larger.

"This situation has the potential for exploding into something much larger."

Radio host Savage was saying how he is happy about all this. It is about time we have this fight and stop suppressing it.He is ready for the fight and it is about time. I can't say I don't feel the same way. I don't see why citizens and other legal residents (who got in line and did it the legal way) have to keep taking this abuse.We are being stepped on and I am tired of it.

MIAMI — Meaghan Patrick, a junior at New College of Florida, a tiny liberal arts college in Sarasota, says discussing immigration with her older relatives is like “hitting your head against a brick wall.”

“I just feel like it’s unfair what the government does to immigrants.” ANDREA BONVECCHIO, 17-year-old U.S.-born daughter of a naturalized citizen. Cathleen McCarthy, a senior at the University of Arizona, says immigration is the rare, radioactive topic that sparks arguments with her liberal mother and her grandmother. “Many older Americans feel threatened by the change that immigration presents,” Ms. McCarthy said. “Young people today have simply been exposed to a more accepting worldview.”

In the wake of the new Arizona law allowing the police to detain people they suspect of entering the country illegally, young people are largely displaying vehement opposition — leading protests on Monday at Senator John McCain’s offices in Tucson, and at the game here between the Florida Marlins and the Arizona Diamondbacks.

Meanwhile, baby boomers, despite a youth of “live and let live,” are siding with older Americans and supporting the Arizona law.

This emerging divide has appeared in a handful of surveys taken since the measure was signed into law, including a New York Times/CBS News poll this month that found that Americans 45 and older were more likely than the young to say the Arizona law was “about right” (as opposed to “going too far” or “not far enough”). Boomers were also more likely to say that “no newcomers” should be allowed to enter the country while more young people favored a “welcome all” approach.

The generational conflict could complicate chances of a federal immigration overhaul any time soon. “The hardening of this divide spells further stalemate,” said Roberto Suro, the former head of the nonpartisan Pew Hispanic Center.

And the causes are partly linked to experience. Demographically, younger and older Americans grew up in vastly different worlds. Those born after the civil rights era lived in a country of high rates of legal and illegal immigration. In their neighborhoods and schools, the presence of immigrants was as hard to miss as a Starbucks today.

In contrast, baby boomers and older Americans — even those who fought for integration — came of age in one of the most homogenous moments in the country’s history.

Immigration, which census figures show declined sharply from the Depression through the 1960s, reached a historic low point the year after Woodstock. From 1860 through 1920, 13 percent to 15 percent of the country was foreign born — a rate similar to today’s, when immigrants make up about 12.5 percent of the country.

But in 1970, only 4.7 percent of the country was foreign born, and most of those immigrants were older Europeans, often unnoticed by the boomer generation born from 1946 to 1964.

Boomers and their parents also spent their formative years away from the cities, where newer immigrants tended to gather — unlike today’s young people who have become more involved with immigrants, through college, or by moving to urban areas.

“It’s hard for them to share each others’ views on what’s going on,” said William H. Frey, a demographer with the Brookings Institution. “These older people grew up in largely white suburbs or largely segregated neighborhoods. Young people have grown up in an interracial culture.”

The generation gap is especially pronounced in formerly fast-growing states like Arizona and Florida, where retirees and new immigrants have flocked — one group for sun, the other for work.

In a new report based on census figures titled “The State of Metropolitan America,” Mr. Frey found that Arizona has the largest “cultural generation gap,” as he calls it, between older Americans who are largely white (83 percent in Arizona’s case) and children under 18 who are increasingly members of minorities (57 percent in Arizona’s case).

Florida ranks sixth on Mr. Frey’s cultural generation gap list, with a 29 percentage point difference between the percentage of white people among its older residents and the percentage that whites make up of its children.

That very different makeup of the young and the old can lead t0 tensions. Demographers say it has the potential to produce public policy that alienates the young because older people are more likely to vote and less likely to be connected to the perspectives of youth — especially the perspectives of young people of different races and national origins.

“Short term, politically, the age divide heightens polarization,” Mr. Suro said “Long term,” he added, “there’s the challenge of whether older citizens will pay for the education of the children of immigrants.”

===========

(Page 2 of 2)

Some older Americans acknowledge that how they grew up has shaped their opinions. Mike Lombardi, 56, of Litchfield, Ariz. — one of 1,079 respondents in the Times/CBS poll conducted from April 28 to May 2 — said his support for his state’s new law stemmed partly from the shock of seeing gaggles of immigrants outside Home Depot, who he assumed were illegal. Comparing the situation to his youth in Torrance, Calif., in a follow-up interview, he said, “You didn’t see anything like what you see now.”

Maggie Aspillaga, 62, a Cuban immigrant in Miami, had more specific concerns: a risk of crime from illegal immigrants and the costs in health care and other services. “They’re taking resources,” she said. Some young people agree, of course, just as many baby boomers support more open immigration policies. In the poll, a majority of Americans in all age groups described illegal immigration as a “very serious” problem.

Still, divisions were pronounced by age: for instance, while 41 percent of Americans ages 45 to 64 and 36 percent of older Americans said immigration levels should be decreased, only 24 percent of those younger than 45 said so.

Ms. Patrick, 22, said the gap reflected what each group saw as normal. In her view, current immigration levels — legal and illegal — represent “the natural course of history.”

As children, after all, her generation watched “Sesame Street” with Hispanic characters, many of them sat in classrooms that were a virtual United Nations, and now they marry across ethnic lines in record numbers. Their children are even adopting mixed monikers like “Mexipino,” (Mexican and Filipino) and “Blaxican” (black and Mexican).

That “multiculti” (short for multicultural) United States is not without challenges. Aparna Malladi, 31, a graduate student at Florida International University originally from India, said that when she first entered laboratories in Miami, it took a while for her to learn the customs.

“I didn’t know that when I enter a room, I have to greet everyone and say goodbye when I leave,” Ms. Malladi said. “People thought I was being rude.”

Still, in interviews across the nation, young people emphasized the benefits of immigrants. Andrea Bonvecchio, 17, the daughter of a naturalized citizen from Venezuela, said going to a high school that is “like 98 percent Hispanic” meant she could find friends who enjoyed both Latin music and her favorite movie, “The Parent Trap.”

Nicole Vespia, 18, of Selden, N.Y., said older people who were worried about immigrants stealing jobs were giving up on an American ideal: capitalist meritocracy.

“If someone works better than I do, they deserve to get the job,” Ms. Vespia said. “I work in a stockroom, and my best workers are people who don’t really speak English. It’s cool to get to know them.”

Her parents’ generation, she added, just needs to adapt.

“My stepdad says, ‘Why do I have to press 1 for English?’ I think that’s ridiculous,” Ms. Vespia said, referring to the common instruction on customer-service lines. “It’s not that big of a deal. Quit crying about it. Press the button.”

Woof, And they continue to simply overlook the difference between immigration and illegal immigration. I'm not against or threaten by immigration to our country but illegal immigration is a threat to our stability and I and every other American, old, young, native born or immigrant should be against that. P.C.

Large radio host posed an interesting question yesterday... Is it also a Human Rights Violation that the Obama Administration will secure borders, check documents and refuse entry to the White House for the undocumented during the upcoming State Dinner with the Mexican President? Why would they do that? How is that different than Arizona's concerns?

Large radio host posed an interesting question yesterday... Is it also a Human Rights Violation that the Obama Administration will secure borders, check documents and refuse entry to the White House for the undocumented during the upcoming State Dinner with the Mexican President? Why would they do that? How is that different than Arizona's concerns?

I thought I would add to the mix. But first, let me be clear, I am against ILLEGAL Immigration; period. You can ship them all home IMHO.

However, that being said, I think the issue, or at least my concern is racial profiling. Let me use your example above. In your example, I presume/expect the White House will "secure borders, check documents, and refuse entry" to ALL regardless of race, color or creed who do not have proper documentation for entry. For example, I'm born in the USA, white, blond (some grey) and blue eyed of German/Norwegian blood. Next to me is Jose, born in the USA, dark haired, dark skinned, of Mexican blood. Who will get stopped and asked for papers at the White House. Both of us I expect. But in Arizona? Probably only Jose. Does that seem right to you? Is it fair that I get a pass yet Jose will get hassled?

As I mentioned, I am against illegal immigration; I don't understand the confusion over the word "illegal". But that applies to any illegal immigrant regardless of where they are from. I don't think it fair to target one group. Today it is Mexicans. Before, it was Asians. Tomorrow?

The law doesn't target one group or another. It applies to Illegal Aliens from Pakistan, Mexico and Ireland and all other parts of the globe. My wife, who is a Lawful Alien must carry her "Green Card" with her at all times and present it upon demand, per federal law. She likes AZ's law and would be more than happy to provide the green card along with her driver's lic to any LEO who cared to ask.

Most cops are well aware that there are plenty of Americans of hispanic ancestry. Many cops, especially in the southwestern US are hispanic. The idea that the AZ law will fuel some ethnic pogrom is not based in anything but hysteria and the left playing their favorite race card.

What do Timothy McVeigh, Ted Bundy, David "Son of Sam" Berkowitz, and 9/11 ring-leader Mohammed Atta have in common? They're all murderers, yes, but another curious detail uniting them is that they were all also brought to police attention by "routine" traffic violations.

While living in Florida, for example, Mohammed Atta ran afoul of traffic law on numerous occasions. An arrest warrant was even issued after he skipped a court appearance (related to not having had a valid driver's license during a traffic stop), which raises the haunting possibility that his fatal path might have been interrupted had these transgressions been linked to other legal violations, such as overstaying a visa. (In fact, at least two of the other 9/11 hijackers had been pulled over for speeding, too.)

**Wouldn't it have been nice if the 9/11 hijackers had gotten arrested as the result of an AZ type law?**